RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 96-03600
INDEX CODES: 111.01, 131.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His nonselections for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel be
declared null and void.
The Promotion Recommendation (PRF), AF Form 709, prepared for
consideration by the CY94A Lieutenant Colonel Board, which convened on
11 Oct 94, be upgraded to a “Definitely Promote.”
He be promoted to the grade of lieutenant colonel as though selected
by the CY94A Lieutenant Colonel Board, which convened on 11 Oct 94.
His records be corrected to reflect continuous active duty, with
restoration of all pay, benefits, and other entitlements to include
carryover of the maximum amount of leave for the period he was not on
active duty.
By amendment, his Officer Performance Report (OPR) closing 6 May 96 be
amended to reflect a professional military education (PME)
recommendation.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
His Record of Performance (ROP) was “tainted” when used by the senior
rater and the Management Level Evaluation Board (MLEB) to prepare his
PRF.
The Management Level Evaluation Board (MLEB) used illegal procedures
in the PRF process.
The selection boards which considered his record was held in violation
of statute and Department of Defense (DOD) directive.
A Special Selection Board cannot provide a full measure of relief.
In support of his appeal, the applicant provided a detailed personal
statement and other documents associated with the matter under review,
including top promote materials, board member observations, and
documentary evidence pertaining to illegal selection boards.
Applicant's complete submission is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Information extracted from the Personnel Data System (PDS) indicates
that the applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of
major. His Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) is 11
Dec 78. He has a date of separation (DOS) of 30 Apr 2003.
Applicant's OER/OPR profile since 1988 follows:
PERIOD ENDING EVALUATION
17 Apr 88 1-1-1
30 Oct 88 Meets Standards
30 Oct 89 Meets Standards
20 Oct 91 Meets Standards
30 Jun 92 Meets Standards
30 Jun 93 Meets Standards
# 30 Jun 94 Meets Standards
6 May 95 Meets Standards
## 6 May 96 Meets Standards
20 Mar 97 Training Report
20 Mar 98 Meets Standards
# Top Report - CY94A (11 Oct 94) Lt Col Board.
## Top Report – CY96C (8 Jul 96) Lt Col Board.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Evaluation Board Section, AFPC/DPPPEP, reviewed this application
and recommended denial. According to DPPPEP, the applicant has not
provided any evidence to substantiate his allegations or prove that he
may have been treated unfairly by the officer evaluation system.
A complete copy of the DPPPEP evaluation is at Exhibit C.
The Selection Board Secretariat, AFPC/DPPB, reviewed this application
and addressed the contentions pertaining to "Defective Selection
Boards.” In DPPB's view, the application contained faulty logic,
incorrect statements, accusations without merit,
directives/statute/regulations taken out of context, and was without
merit.
A complete copy of the DPPB evaluation is at Exhibit D.
The Appeals and SSB Branch, AFPC/DPPPA, reviewed this application and
indicated that, in their view, the advisory opinions addressed all of
the applicant's allegations and supporting documentation. DPPPA noted
that the applicant did not provide any support from the senior rater
and the Management Level Review Board (MLRB) president. Based on the
evidence presented, DPPPA recommended denial.
A complete copy of the DPPPA evaluation is at Exhibit E.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
In his detailed response, in addition to the issues he previously
raised, the applicant indicated that he was denied an appropriate
Professional Military Education (PME) recommendation on his OPR
closing 6 May 96 because of his nonselection for promotion.
According to the applicant, the issues in his case are quite clear,
although carefully avoided by AFPC. In his view, AFPC has not even
provided a scintilla of evidence to support their positions, nor have
they provided a single document which would prove their pontification
was any more than speculation.
Applicant's complete response and additional documentary evidence are
at Exhibit G.
_________________________________________________________________
ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Pursuant to the Board's request, the Evaluation Programs Branch,
AFPC/DPPPE, reviewed this application and documents initiated to date
and indicated that, at the present time, due to lack of evidentiary
support from his original senior rater, MLRB president, and his rating
chain, they recommend denial.
A complete copy of the DPPPE evaluation is at Exhibit H.
The Selection Board Secretariat, AFPC/DPPB, reviewed the applicant's
rebuttal, and indicated that it failed to provide any new evidence to
support his contentions. Therefore, they have nothing further to add
to their initial advisory.
A complete copy of the DPPB evaluation is at Exhibit I.
The Appeals and SSB Branch, AFPC/DPPPA, again reviewed this appeal and
indicated that they concurred with the advisory from AFPC/DPPPEP. In
their view, DPPPEP adequately addressed the PRF and OPR issues. As
they do not believe any correction to the PRF and OPR is warranted,
SSB consideration is not warranted. With regard to the issue of
direct promotion, they strongly recommended denial.
A complete copy of the DPPPA evaluation is at Exhibit J.
The Staff Judge Advocate, AFPC/JA, reviewed this application and
recommended denial. In JA's view, the applicant has failed to present
relevant evidence of any error or injustice warranting relief.
A complete copy of the JA evaluation is at Exhibit K.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Applicant indicated that the unrefuted evidence proves his OPR was
incorrect when considered by both the MLEB and central board. The
unrefuted evidence proves he was harmed by an illegal top promote
system used in other commands Air Force wide. The unrefuted evidence
proves he was harmed by a central selection board process held
contrary to law. The evidence also proves an SSB offers no cure
because of the combination of the errors precludes relief. He asks
the Board to correct his record to reflect selection to the grade of
lieutenant colonel as if selected by the 1994 Lieutenant Colonel
Board, with all pay, allowances, and entitlements which were denied
him as a result of the errors in his record and the illegal activities
in the evaluation system and the Air Force central promotion selection
system.
Applicant's complete response and additional documentary evidence are
at Exhibit M.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law
or regulations.
2. The application was timely filed.
3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the existence of probable error or injustice. The applicant's
complete submission was thoroughly reviewed and his contentions
concerning the contested PRF and OPR, his consideration for promotion
by the selection board in question, and the promotion process in
general were duly noted. However, we do not find the applicant’s
assertions and the documentation presented in support of his appeal
sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by the Air
Force offices of primary responsibility (OPRs) concerning these
issues. Therefore, in the absence of clear and convincing evidence to
the contrary, we agree with the recommendations of the OPRs and adopt
their rationale as the basis for our decision that the applicant has
failed to sustain his burden of establishing that he has suffered
either an error or an injustice. Accordingly, we find no compelling
basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.
4. The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been
shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will
materially add to our understanding of the issues involved.
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:
The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not
demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice;
that the application was denied without a personal appearance; and
that the application will only be reconsidered upon the submission of
newly discovered relevant evidence not considered with this
application.
_________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered this application in
Executive Session on 23 Sep 99, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Panel Chair
Mr. Charles E. Bennett, Member
Mr. Jackson A. Hauslein, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 4 Dec 96, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPEP, dated 21 Jan 97.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPB, dated 24 Jan 97.
Exhibit E. Letter, AFPC/DPPPA, dated 29 Jan 97
Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 17 Feb 97.
Exhibit G. Letter, applicant, dated 31 Mar 97, w/atchs.
Exhibit H. Letter, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 12 Aug 98.
Exhibit I. Letter, AFPC/DPPB, dated 17 Sep 98.
Exhibit J. Letter, AFPC/DPPPA, dated 22 Sep 98.
Exhibit K. Letter, AFPC/JA, dated 22 Oct 98.
Exhibit L. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 9 Nov 98.
Exhibit M. Letter, applicant, undated, w/atchs.
THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
Panel Chair
In support of his appeal, the applicant provided a detailed personal statement and other documents associated with the matter under review, including top promote materials, board member observations, and documentary evidence pertaining to illegal selection boards. Applicant's complete response and additional documentary evidence are at Exhibit G. _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Pursuant to the Board's request, the Evaluation...
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1996-02697
A complete copy of the JA evaluation is at Exhibit G. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant provided a detailed response to the Air Force advisory opinions, as well as additional documentary evidence for the Board’s consideration (Exhibit I). A complete copy of the JA evaluation is at Exhibit N. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE...
A complete copy of the JA evaluation is at Exhibit G. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant provided a detailed response to the Air Force advisory opinions, as well as additional documentary evidence for the Board’s consideration (Exhibit I). A complete copy of the JA evaluation is at Exhibit N. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE...
According to DPPPEB, there was no evidence presented to support the allegations of "illegal" information being considered in the PRF process. Also, there was no official evidence presented to support allegations of '\special" promote recommendations being used to identify officers who should be selected for promotion by the Central Selection Board. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In his response, the applicant indicated that the evidence proves that his PRF was based on an...
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1997-02055
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Report and Queries Section, AFPC/DPAIS1, indicated that a review of the applicant’s duty history revealed that the upgrade to “Chief, Electronic Combat Systems” was entered into the PDS with an effective date of 1 Aug 94. A complete copy of the DPAIS1 evaluation is at Exhibit C. The Selection Board Secretariat, AFPC/DPPB, reviewed this application and indicated that they disagreed with the...
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Report and Queries Section, AFPC/DPAIS1, indicated that a review of the applicant’s duty history revealed that the upgrade to “Chief, Electronic Combat Systems” was entered into the PDS with an effective date of 1 Aug 94. A complete copy of the DPAIS1 evaluation is at Exhibit C. The Selection Board Secretariat, AFPC/DPPB, reviewed this application and indicated that they disagreed with the...
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. The Senior Attorney-Advisor, AFPC/JA, reviewed this application and states that the entire Air Force promotion recommendation process is totally a creature of Air Force regulation; it is not governed at all by statute or DoD Directive. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit E. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and states that...
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1997-01786
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. The Senior Attorney-Advisor, AFPC/JA, reviewed this application and states that the entire Air Force promotion recommendation process is totally a creature of Air Force regulation; it is not governed at all by statute or DoD Directive. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit E. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and states that...
SECOND ADDENDUM TO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FORde the CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 94-04946 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO RESUME OF CASE: On 16 November 1993, the Board considered and granted the applicant’s request that the Company Grade Officer Performance Report (OPR), rendered for the period 14 May 1991 through 4 December 1991, be removed from his records. Complete copies of the Air Force evaluations are attached at Exhibits D through...
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1994-04946B
SECOND ADDENDUM TO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FORde the CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 94-04946 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO RESUME OF CASE: On 16 November 1993, the Board considered and granted the applicant’s request that the Company Grade Officer Performance Report (OPR), rendered for the period 14 May 1991 through 4 December 1991, be removed from his records. Complete copies of the Air Force evaluations are attached at Exhibits D through...